CHAPTER-III Performance Reviews - Accountant General, Goa
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CHAPTER-III
Performance Reviews
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
3.1 REVIEW ON “DAYANAND SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME”
HIGHLIGHTS
• The Dayanand Social Security Scheme (DSSS) was implemented by the
State Government with effect from 1 January 2002 with a view to providing
financial assistance of Rs.500 per month to the vulnerable sections of the
society such as senior citizens, single and destitute women and handicapped
persons. The first phase of the scheme was implemented through the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) by entering into an agreement (MOU) in
terms of which the State Government purchased pension for each pensioner by
paying a price computed by LIC based on the age of the beneficiary. In turn,
LIC was to pay pension during the lifetime of the beneficiary. The second
phase was implemented through the Mapusa Urban Cooperative Bank (MUCB)
as a disbursing bank for the pensions. There were flaws in the rules and
deficiencies and irregularities in implementation of the scheme which led to
sanction of ineligible and bogus pensions, duplicate sanctions to same persons,
sanctions to both husband and wife, overlapping of benefits, continuation of
pension remittance to the accounts of expired beneficiaries and non-
disbursement of pension to sanctioned beneficiaries. The Social Welfare
Department which was responsible for implementation of the DSSS, did not
ensure adoption of proper systems and internal controls. Highlights of the
review are given below.
¾ The first phase of the scheme was implemented through the LIC
against purchase price for pension paid by the State
Government. The State Government paid much more than was
disbursed as pension by the LIC. The LIC paid less interest to
the State Government on the funds accumulated with it while
charging a higher rate from the State Government for delayed
payments. Besides, the LIC did not honour the provisions of the
scheme regarding extending the benefits to the surviving
members of the families of deceased pensioners.
(Paragraph 3.1.7 to 3.1.10)
¾ Though the scheme envisaged sanction of the financial assistance
to the poor and needy whose income did not exceed the amount
of assistance envisaged under the scheme (Rs. 6000 per annum),
an affidavit sworn by the applicant and countersigned by an
MLA was accepted as proof of income without any counter
checks by the Department.
(Paragraph 3.1.13)Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
¾ Twenty seven beneficiaries who were receiving pension under a
separate State scheme for former artists through Directorate of
Arts and Culture, also received pension under DSSS for period
ranging from 4 to 33 months, which was yet to be recovered from
the pensioners (Rs.1.94 lakh).
(Paragraph 3.1.12)
¾ Double payment of pension of Rs.6.89 lakh was made to 232
beneficiaries. Pension of Rs.10.57 lakh was paid to both the
spouses in 142 cases for periods ranging from 1 to 20 months.
(Paragraph 3.1.13)
¾ The findings of a survey agency appointed by the State
Government revealed that out of 40818 beneficiaries covered in
survey, only 28979 were genuine beneficiaries. The irregular
pension paid to such non-genuine beneficiaries as of June 2004
amounted to Rs.6.98 crore. Pension payment to 9327 non-
genuine cases other than expired and bogus cases continued, as
re-survey ordered by Government was not completed.
(December 2004)
(Paragraph 3.1.14)
¾ Pension was not disbursed to 415 beneficiaries sanctioned during
January 2002 to October 2002 for want of bank account details
and Rs.48 lakh due to the beneficiaries was lying with LIC. Thus
non disbursal of pension to the beneficiaries defeated the
objectives of scheme and resulted in unintended financial benefit
to the LIC in the form of undisbursed funds lying with them.
(Paragraph 3.1.16)
¾ Registers and books of accounts were not maintained by the
Department. Reconciliation of accounts with LIC was not
conducted. The scheme implementation suffered due to lack of
internal controls.
(Paragraph 3.1.18)
3.1.1 Introduction
The Government introduced the Dayanand Social Security Scheme (DSSS) with
effect from 1 January 2002 under the Goa Dayanand Social Security Scheme
Rules, 2001. The existing social welfare schemes viz. Dayanand Smriti Niradhar
Madat Yojana, Scheme of Financial assistance to Young Widows and the Scheme
of Grant of Family Pension to the Old, Destitute and the Handicapped persons
were amalgamated into the new scheme, to provide financial assistance to the
vulnerable sections of the society, i.e. the elderly, the disabled and women in
difficult circumstances. It was provided that the per capita family income should
be less than the assistance received under this scheme, and the applicant should
not be in receipt of financial assistance from any other source. There were 54,855
_______________________________________________________________
30Chapter III Performance Reviews
beneficiaries under the scheme (19736# with LIC and 35119 with Mapusa Urban
Co-op. Bank Ltd.) as of June 2004.
3.1.2 Programme objectives
The objective of the scheme was to provide financial assistance of Rs.500 per
month with an increase of Rs.25 per annum to senior citizens above 60 years of
age, widows, divorcees, deserted or judicially separated women above 18 years of
age, unmarried women above 50 years of age and disabled persons above 21 years
of age, whose per capita income is less than the amount of annual financial
assistance under the scheme.
The scheme also envisaged insurance cover to women and disabled beneficiaries
upto the age of 60 years, and also to traditional workers and unorganised labour,
by payment of a premium at the rate of Rs.100 per member per annum by the
Government of Goa to LIC.
3.1.3 Organisational set up
The scheme is implemented by the Department of Social Welfare, headed by a
Secretary and is assisted by Director, Social Welfare. The applications received
for the financial assistance were scrutinised by the Directorate of the Social
Welfare and recommended for sanction to a committee constituted by the
Government. Initially the committee was headed by the Minister, Department of
Social Welfare. It was reconstituted in June 2002 with the Chief Minister as
Chairman, and the Minister, Department of Social Welfare, the Leader of the
Opposition and the Director of Social Welfare as the other three members.
Disbursement of the financial assistance to the beneficiaries was made through the
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and the Mapusa Urban Co-Op. Bank of
Goa Ltd. (MUCB).
3.1.4 Scope of Audit
The scheme was reviewed with the following objectives:
• To ascertain whether the scheme objectives were achieved.
• Whether the benefits under the scheme were overlapping with any other
existing schemes.
• Whether systems and procedures were in place to guard the financial
interest of the government; and
• Whether any wasteful or avoidable expenditure occurred during the
implementation of the scheme.
3.1.5 Audit Coverage
A review of implementation of the scheme since inception (January 2002) to
June 2004 was conducted during May 2004 to July 2004.
#
After discontinuation of detected cases of expired, double, both spouses etc, from the sanctioned 21113 cases
_______________________________________________________________
31Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
3.1.6. Financial outlay
The scheme is entirely funded by the State Government. The financial outlay on
the scheme and the expenditure incurred for the period from 2001-02 to June 2004
were as under:
(Rs. in crore)
Funds Released
Budget Expenditure
Year to
Provision
LIC MUCB Total
2001-02
Nil 20 -- 20
(From January 2002)
2002-03 20 20 -- 20
2003-04 40.34 24.54♣ 13.48 38.02
2004-05
40.20 Nil 6.00 6.00
(Up to June 2004)
Total 100.54 64.54 19.48 84.02
3.1.7 Implementation of the scheme through LIC
For implementation of the scheme through LIC a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) was entered into between the State Government and the LIC on 2 October
2001. The scheme had two different components viz., monthly payment of
financial assistance in the form of monthly pension and providing insurance cover.
As per the MOU, the Government purchased pension for each beneficiary by
paying a purchase price computed by LIC according to the age of the individual
beneficiary. The LIC in turn was required to pay pension to the beneficiaries for
life with an annual increment of Rs.25. A running account of the scheme was
required to be maintained by LIC where the sums released by Government were to
be deposited and the payments were to be released to the beneficiaries by debit to
this account. The MOU entered into between the Government and LIC stipulated
that –
• The State Government would create a fund for the operation of the scheme
by contributing a sum of Rs. 20 crore.
• The purchase price could be paid by the State Government in instalments
provided that at least one fifth of the required purchase price is available in
the Fund; the balance of purchase price along with interest at the rate
decided by LIC would be payable in maximum of four annual instalments.
• LIC would pay interest to Government on the credit balance in the
Running Account at the end of each year at the rate decided by them.
• LIC would pay monthly pension to the beneficiaries and on the death of
beneficiaries to their surviving spouses or children (upto 21 years).
• The scheme also included an insurance cover for eligible beneficiaries
aged between 18 and 59 years on payment of premium by Government at
the rate of Rs. 100 per member per annum.
♣
Includes payment of Rs.4.10 crore on ad-hoc basis.
_______________________________________________________________
32Chapter III Performance Reviews
The Department intimated 21113 sanctioned cases to LIC during January 2002 to
October 2002 for which the total purchase price payable was Rs.122.04 crore.
3.1.8 Liability for payment of interest
The year-wise details of purchase price due to be paid during the year,
interest on delayed payment of purchase price, amount of purchase price
paid and interest earned by the Department, etc., as per account furnished by
LIC were as under:
(Rs in Crore)
Amount paid and interest earned
Amount due to LIC
by Department
Year Total Interest on Interest on Insurance Total Purchase Interest Total
purchase delayed outstanding Premium/ price and earned
price due payment of purchase expenses interest
during the purchase price price paid
year instalments
2001-02 6.59 0.10 0.54 0.01 7.24 20.00 0.38 20.38
2002-03 24.41 1.23 9.78 0.13 35.55 19.00 1.61 20.61
2003-04 24.41 1.14 11.09 0.08 36.72 21.44 0.74 22.18
Total 55.41 2.47♣ 21.41 0.22 79.51 60.44 2.73♣ 63.17
Outstanding
It was observed that as per the terms of MOU Rs. 20 crore was paid in the first
liability of year (2001-02) towards the purchase price in respect of 5735 beneficiaries
Government whereas the outgo of LIC was to the tune of Rs.56.04 lakh. Similarly for the
towards purchase subsequent number of beneficiaries intimated, the outgo of pension from LIC for
price and interest the period 2002-04 would be Rs. 26.64 crore (Rs 10.66 crore for 2002-03 and Rs
to LIC was
Rs.73.01 crore,
15.98 crore for 2003-04 based on Rs 500 per month and annual increment of Rs.
and further 25) against which Government had paid Rs 40.44 crore.
interest liability
would amount to Considering the outstanding purchase price and interest liability of Rs.83.01
Rs.10.32 crore. croreΨ as on 31 March 2004 and payments of Rs.10 crore made in
August/September 2004, the outstanding liability of Government to LIC was
Rs.73.01 crore as of September 2004. Further, Government is bound as per the
MOU for an interest liability of Rs.10.32 crore from April 2004 on the
outstanding purchase price liability, as per Appendix 3.1.
The Department stated that the pension purchase price submitted by LIC was
tentative and the same was yet to be finalised by LIC. However, the department
had already made the payment to the LIC. Further, non-finalisation of financial
arrangements even after two years of commencement of the scheme was not
justifiable.
Secondly, as can be seen from the tables, there has been absolutely no net outgo
from the LIC so far under the scheme and this was quite forseeable. The reason
for the Government to enter into the MOU with LIC was not clear. It is interesting
to note that the rate of interest paid by LIC on the amounts at credit in the running
♣
Interest was charged whenever the amount in running account fell short to debit the purchase price due against
pension cases vested with LIC and interest was allowed on excess amounts available in the running account.
Payments were being released periodically by State Government.
Ψ
Rs.122.04 (total purchase price) + Rs.21.41 crore (interest) – Rs.60.44 crore (purchase price plus interest
paid).
_______________________________________________________________
33Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
account of the scheme at the end of each year varied from 8.40 to 10.10 per cent
whereas the interest charged from the Government was 13 per cent.
3.1.9 Excess liability on account of purchase price
Audit scrutiny revealed that the Government had accepted the purchase price
calculations of LIC without detailed study. It was seen that out of 18285 senior
citizen beneficiaries covered by LIC, 14182 were in the age group of 60 to 69
years. The benefit so far accrued to LIC is mainly because of the higher purchase
price in respect of the beneficiaries aged 60 years and above.
Beneficiary’s age Purchase price per No. of beneficiaries Purchase price payable
head (Rs.) to LIC (Rs. In crore)
60 62630 2945 18.44
61 61538 1784 10.98
62 60423 1754 10.60
63 59289 1406 8.34
64 58027 1203 6.98
65 56711 1993 11.30
66 55300 1034 5.72
67 53860 749 4.03
68 52356 777 4.07
69 50847 537 2.73
14182 83.19
Further, it was noticed that there were 4103 beneficiaries aged between 70 and 99
years in respect of whom purchase price amounting to Rs.18.09 crore was
payable. In view of the average life expectancy of 70 years1 in the State, it is
obvious that the LIC would derive benefit on the pension outgo in respect of
above beneficiaries. Another reason for profit accruing to LIC is the payment of
interest by State Government to LIC on outstanding purchase price which is quite
exorbitant (13 per cent).
The Government while admitting the excess liability on account of purchase price
stated (December 2004) that steps would be taken to rectify the financial clauses
and the purchase price and the interest component would be negotiated.
3.1.10 Non adherence of provisions of MOU by LIC
The MOU with the LIC provided for passing of the pension benefit to the spouse
Pension was not of a deceased beneficiary. It was noticed that in response to Department’s request
transferred to the (December 2002) to LIC to commence payment of pension to the spouses of 17
spouses of 17 deceased beneficiaries, LIC disputed (January 2003) its liability to continue the
deceased pension to the spouses stating that the purchase price calculated and
beneficiaries as
provided in the communicated was on single life and continuation of pension to spouse would
MOU with the amount to a new beneficiary requiring re-computation of purchase price. The
LIC. Department did not respond to the incorrect stand taken by the LIC, thereby
depriving the beneficiaries.
The Government replied (December 2004) that though the initial decision was to
purchase family pension, the Government decided to purchase pension for single
1
Health profile, Goa prepared by Director of Health Services, Goa in the year 2001.
_______________________________________________________________
34Chapter III Performance Reviews
life and not for family due to high cost. The reply is not tenable as the MOU
clearly provides for transfer of pension to the spouse on death of the beneficiary.
Thus, LIC apparently did not honour the provisions of the MOU regarding
payment of pension to surviving eligible members of the families.
3.1.11 Arrangements with Mapusa Urban Co-op. Bank of Goa Ltd. at a higher
cost to the Government
In November 2002, LIC had demanded 30 per cent higher purchase price for the
insurance scheme and the Government, in turn, had decided not to operate
Phase-II of the scheme through the LIC. It was seen from the records that instead
of paying higher purchase price the Government arranged payment of pension for
new beneficiaries by placing the required amount of funds at the disposal of LIC
without actually purchasing any pension from them. For such distribution of
pension to the beneficiaries, LIC was charging 3 per cent as service charges
besides Rs. 2500 as floppy charges (lump sum) and Rs. 6 per transaction. Since
this was obviously a very hefty payment, Government decided to get the pension
under Phase-II distributed through the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited
(MUCB).
As per the MOU entered into with MUCB in September 2003, the State
Government was to route the payment of pension to the beneficiaries through
MUCB as the nodal bank. For this a separate account was opened in MUCB
where the funds released by the Government for disbursement of pension were
deposited with provision of yearly accrual and credit of interest. The MUCB was
to be paid a service fee of two per cent on the amount disbursed. As of June 2004,
35,119 beneficiaries were receiving financial assistance routed through the
MUCB. The MUCB disbursed an amount of Rs.15.82 crore to the beneficiaries up
to June 2004 and earned a service fee of Rs.31.65 lakh approximately.
While deciding on entering into the arrangement with MUCB for distribution of
pension, the Government seemed to have been guided only by the rate charged by
LIC which was clearly exorbitant. However, the Government did not invite offers
from other institutions including Public Sector Banks. It may be mentioned that
for undertaking Government transactions, the State Bank of India charges only
0.19 per cent as service fee.
The Government replied (December 2004) that the service fees charged by
Service charges MUCB was less than the fees charged by LIC. In the absence of any offers from
paid to MUCB
public sector banks it could not be ascertained if the fees charged by MUCB were
without seeking
offers from Public the most competitive.
Sector Banks.
3.1.12. Overlapping benefits
As per Rules regulating DSSS, the applicant should not be in receipt of any other
financial assistance from any other source. Scrutiny revealed that overlapping of
benefits occurred due to lack of coordination by the Social Welfare Department
with other State agencies through whom other similar schemes are implemented.
It was noticed that 27 beneficiaries who were recipients of financial assistance
under a separate State scheme for former artists implemented through the
_______________________________________________________________
35Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
Directorate of Arts and Culture received pension under DSSS also for periods
ranging from four to 33 months. Their pension under DSSS was cancelled after
voluntary disclosure of the fact of getting assistance under both the schemes.
Audit scrutiny revealed that before cancellation, pension of Rs.1.94 lakh had been
paid to them and no attempts were made to recover the money paid or to verify the
existence of other such beneficiaries.
3.1.13 Deficiencies and Irregularities in Scheme implementation
Sole affidavit of Beneficiary accepted as proof of income and cheques
distributed by Ministers/MLAs
The application forms for grant of financial assistance were distributed initially
Income declared through Ministers, MLAs and subsequently also through Block Development
by the Officers, Mamlatdars and the Social Welfare Department. The applications were
beneficiaries and
to be submitted to the Director of Social Welfare along with the documents in
countersigned by
the MLAs was proof of age, affidavit by the applicant certifying income countersigned by a
accepted without MLA, proof of residence, medical certificate in case of disabled persons, death
counter certificate and marriage certificate in case of widows, etc.
verification.
The applications were to be scrutinised by the Department and recommended for
sanction by the Committee constituted for the purpose. The affidavits indicating
the income of the beneficiary countersigned by the MLAs were accepted without
any supporting document or certification by local authorities. Thus, the most
important criterion of the scheme viz. the income level was determined on the
basis of countersignature of MLAs.
The sanctioned cases are communicated to LIC and MUCB for release of financial
assistance. The first payment of financial assistance was made through cheques
which were handed over to the beneficiaries by Ministers and MLAs at public
functions and subsequent payments were to be paid on the first day of every
month through bank accounts of the beneficiaries.
The Government replied (December 2004) that the procedure of accepting
affidavit countersigned by MLAs had been adopted to avoid the cumbersome
procedure of getting the certificates from the concerned authorities. However, a
system for prior verification would be put in place for new beneficiaries.
Sanction of pension to ineligible persons
As per eligibility conditions under the scheme, the per capita income of the
Test check of beneficiary should be less than the amount of financial assistance. This means that
1000 the annual income of an eligible beneficiary should be less than Rs.6000. Besides,
applications the beneficiaries under the senior citizens category should be above 60 years of
revealed payment
of financial
age. While documentary evidence had to be attached along with application as
assistance to 52 proof of age, an affidavit sworn by the beneficiary countersigned by an MLA was
ineligible accepted as proof of income.
persons.
Audit scrutiny of 1000 sanctioned applications randomly selected from eight
talukas revealed that in 52 cases pension was granted under senior citizens
category to ineligible persons such as those having income in excess of the
_______________________________________________________________
36Chapter III Performance Reviews
prescribed limit (nine cases); those less than 60 years of age (18 cases) and
persons whose documents were incomplete (five casesψ). Further, 20 cases were
also detected in audit scrutiny where age shown in the certificate such as ration
card had been over written or the age as shown in the application form did not
tally with the age as appearing in proof of age certificate. The cases were
sanctioned by the Department without proper scrutiny of the applications. Thus
there was irregular expenditure on recurring payment of pension amounting to
Rs.3.12 lakh per annum to the above 52 ineligible beneficiaries found in the test
checked 1000 applications. Thus, of the sample drawn of 1000 cases, cases of
sanction to ineligible persons were 52 (five per cent) indicating high percentage of
defective scrutiny.
Duplicate sanctions
Double payment The Department had noticed double sanction of pension to 231 beneficiaries and
of Rs.6.89 lakh triple sanction to one beneficiary upto June 2004 by the LIC, which were
due to duplicate
sanctions. Test
subsequently cancelled. The total pension paid irregularly to the above 232
check in audit beneficiaries between February 2002 and June 2004 was worked out during audit
revealed 51 more and amounted to Rs.6.89 lakh.
duplicate
sanctions. Further, though instances of duplicate sanctions were noticed from as early as
June 2002, the Department did not take any comprehensive action to detect and
eliminate all such cases. Test check of the beneficiary list with MUCB for the
month of June 2004 in audit revealed double payment to 51 beneficiaries due to
duplicate sanctions involving recurring payment of Rs.25,500 per month. The
total pension paid to these beneficiaries could not be quantified for want of details
of sanction of first pension.
The Government replied (December 2004) that steps had been taken to detect the
cases of double sanction.
Sanction of pension to both the spouses
Under the scheme, both the spouses were not eligible for receipt of separate
pensions. Scrutiny revealed that pension was sanctioned to 142 beneficiaries
whose spouses had also been sanctioned pension under the scheme and payments
to both the spouses were made upto April 2003. The total amount thus paid
irregularly was Rs.10.57 lakh to both husband and wife for periods ranging from 1
to 20 months, till stoppage of pension in April 2003.
The Government accepted the fact and stated (December 2004) that steps have
been taken for resurvey and for cancellation of pension of one of the spouses and
recovery of the pension wrongly paid.
3.1.14 Inaction on survey report
Since many cases of duplicate sanctions, sanction of financial assistance to
ineligible beneficiaries, continuation of pension to expired beneficiaries etc. were
noticed by the Government, they decided (June 2003) to conduct a survey of
ψ
Proof of age not attached (two cases), income certificate not attached (two cases) and residence certificate not
attached (one case)
_______________________________________________________________
37Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
beneficiaries and appointed the Centre for Development Planning and Research
(CDPR), Pune for purpose. The objective of the survey was to find out whether
the beneficiaries fulfilled the criteria as per rules and received financial assistance
in time. The methodology adopted by the agency for survey was to get the
required information through questionnaires by visiting individual beneficiaries.
The agency conducted the survey during July to December 2003 in respect of
40818 cases sanctioned up to June 2003, and submitted the report in January 2004
for which Rs.13.20 lakh were paid to the agency.
The Social
Welfare The survey report indicated that out of 40818 beneficiaries, only 28979 were
Department did genuine and the rest included doubtful cases (4584), cases of migration out of Goa
not take action on (866), bogus cases (881), and expired beneficiaries to be paid (1631), beneficiaries
11839 cases not found at the recorded address (3877). The agency recommended stoppage of
resulting in
irregular
pension to all expired, bogus, migrated cases and detailed inquiries in case of
payments of doubtful beneficiaries. The Chief Minister ordered in May, 2004 to delete the non-
Rs.6.98 crores. genuine cases by end of June 2004 after verification.
Audit scrutiny revealed that the Department had taken action in April 2004 only to
stop the pension in respect of 1191 expired beneficiaries out of 1631 cases
reported, whereas no action was taken in respect of 10,648 non-genuine
beneficiaries (July 2004), and the Department had not even obtained the names
and addresses of such cases from the CDPR. Thus, irregular pension to the tune of
Rs. 6.98 crore∗ was released as of June 2004, calculated at the rate of Rs. 500 per
month.
The Government replied (December 2004) that a resurvey of cases categorised as
doubtful, migrated and not found is being done by CDPR before stopping their
pension, and as regards expired and bogus cases (2512), action has been initiated.
However, action to stop the financial assistance in respect of 9327 beneficiaries
categorised as doubtful, migrated, and beneficiaries not found is yet to be taken
(December 2004).
3.1.15 Continuation of pension payment to the accounts of expired
beneficiaries
Premium of
Rupees 81.60 The Rules did not provide for production of Life certificate or opening of an
lakh paid in exclusive Pension Account etc., as are mandatory for retired Government
favour of expired employees. As a result the pension disbursement continued until the members of
beneficiaries. the family voluntarily reported the death of the beneficiaries.
Such payment
continues in 440
cases. Audit scrutiny revealed that though the survey report indicated in January 2004
that 1631 beneficiaries had expired as of July 2003, the Department directed the
LIC and MUCB to stop the pension payment to 1191 beneficiaries only in
April 2004, and no action to discontinue payments was taken in respect of the
remaining 440 beneficiaries.
The Department did not have any information on details of amount of pension
disbursed, and amounts if any withdrawn from such accounts after death of
beneficiaries and expected the LIC/MUCB bank to supply these details to them.
∗
Pension paid to 11839 beneficiaries from July 2003 to April 2004 and to 10648 beneficiaries(11839 – 1191)
from May to June 2004.
_______________________________________________________________
38Chapter III Performance Reviews
Thus, pension amounting to Rs. 81.60 lakh (computed @ Rs. 500 per month) was
paid to 1631 expired beneficiaries. The Department replied that reconciliation
process with the banks was in progress.
3.1.16 Irregularities in Pension disbursement
Non-disbursement of pension by LIC for want of bank account details
Financial The scheme envisaged payment of financial assistance by LIC through bank
assistance to 415
beneficiaries was
accounts. Up to June 2002 cheques were drawn by LIC in favour of the
not disbursed by beneficiaries and handed over to the department for onward distribution to the
LIC due to non- beneficiaries. From July 2002 LIC was instructed to disburse pension through
receipt of bank Electronic Clearing System (ECS), for which the department had to obtain bank
account details also account details of the beneficiaries and furnish the same to LIC.
resulting in
unintended
financial benefit of It was noticed in audit that pension was not disbursed (as of June 2004), to 415
Rs.48 lakh to them beneficiaries sanctioned during January 2002 to October 2002 for want of bank
account details, as shown below:
Month and year No. of cases Since when Total number of Amount of
of sanction2 unpaid months for which pension at the
disbursement minimum rate
pending as of June of Rs.500 p.m.
2004
Jan. 2002 27 July 2002 24 324000
Feb. 2002 290 -do- 24 348000
Mar-2002 63 -do- 24 756000
April-2002 130 -do- 24 1560000
May-2002 34 -do- 24 408000
Oct. 2002 132 October 2002 21 1386000
TOTAL 415 4782000
The above instances of non-disbursement of pension not only defeated the
objectives of the scheme but has also resulted in undue financial benefit to LIC as
they had already received the payment from the Government as per the agreed
terms.
Cheques issued by MUCB not encashed
Government had permitted disbursement of financial assistance by way of
cheques issued by MUCB till such time as the beneficiaries opened bank
accounts. It was noticed in audit that 3978 cheques issued during October 2003 to
April 2004 by MUCB meant for distribution to the beneficiaries were not
2
Month and year of sanction indicates the month from which pension was to be paid.
_______________________________________________________________
39Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
presented to the banks for clearance (August 2004). As such an amount Rs.19.89
lakh was lying with the MUCB as detailed below:
Month in which Amount involved @ Service charges
No. of cheques
issued Rs. 500 per cheque @ 2 per cent
October 2003 483 2,41,500 4,830
November 2003 532 2,66,000 5,320
Three thousand
nine hundred and February 2003 338 1,69,000 3,380
seventy eight March 2004 2168 10,84,000 21,680
cheques issued by April 2004 457 2,28,500 4,570
MUCB during Total 3978 19,89,000 39,780
October 2003 to
April 2004 were not Though the Director of Social Welfare stated that no cheques remained with the
encashed by department for distribution to the beneficiaries, they did not have any records of
beneficiaries as of handing over of the cheques to the beneficiaries. Thus, though the benefits in form
August 2004. As
such expenditure of of financial assistance had not reached the beneficiaries, the funds to that extent
Rs.19.89 lakh were shown to be expended from scheme funds in Government accounts while the
remained amount remained in the bank account operated by MUCB. The cheques could be
unfruitful. reissued as and when the beneficiaries claim the pension.
Further, neither the Department is aware nor audit could verify whether these
beneficiaries have opened bank accounts subsequently and were getting regular
pension payment through ECS.
The Government replied (December 2004) that as per assurance of the
Government on the floor of Legislative Assembly, the first cheques issued in
newly sanctioned cases were distributed to the concerned beneficiaries by
organising public functions and the cheques sanctioned during March 2004 were
not distributed till August 2004 due to the code of conduct enforced by Election
Commissioner. However, no reason was furnished for non-clearance of 1353
cheques issued prior to March 2004. Action proposed either for cancellation of the
cheques or verification of the genuineness of the beneficiaries was not stated by
the Government.
3.1.17 Non implementation of provisions of MOU with LIC
Insurance Claim benefits not handed over to beneficiaries
Though the The Rules regulating the DSSS and the MOU entered into with LIC provides for
Government had insurance coverage to eligible beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 59 years,
paid LIC Rs.11.12 against payment of premium of Rs.100 per month per beneficiary. Insurance
lakh towards benefit of Rs.30,000 was payable to the family if the beneficiary died an
premium, accidental death. Amount of Rs.20,000 was payable in case of permanent
insurance benefit
was not given to disability. Besides, Rs.20,000 each in case of natural death and accidental death of
dependents of 29 the beneficiary and Rs.30,000 on permanent disability arising due to accident of
expired the beneficiary, were to be credited by the LIC to the Running Account of the
beneficiaries. scheme.
As of March 2004, the LIC has charged Rs.11.12 lakh towards premium for
beneficiaries covered under the insurance clause. Audit scrutiny revealed that
though 29 beneficiaries aged between 18 to 59 years had expired as of June, 2004.
_______________________________________________________________
40Chapter III Performance Reviews
The Department had not taken any action to claim the insurance benefit from the
LIC thereby defeating the very objective of the insurance scheme.
3.1.18 Non-maintenance of accounts
The Department has not maintained any books of accounts for the implementation
Proper accounts of the scheme. As a result the Department had to solely depend on LIC and
of transactions MUCB for even basic data and information such as additions and deletions to the
with LIC and
MUCB were not list of beneficiaries, the purchase price calculations, service fee payable and the
maintained by the interest charged/receivable etc. The department also did not have any record of
Department. cheques issued to the beneficiaries by LIC or MUCB, which had remained
uncleared. The exercise to periodically reconcile the amounts released to LIC and
MUCB with pensions disbursed by them to various beneficiaries, interest accrued
etc, was not carried out (as of December 2004).
The department stated that all the records are computerised and computer
generated reports are available. However, Audit scrutiny revealed that the
Department was having a computer list of pensions sanctioned and thereafter had
not updated its records with the death cases and cancellations of pension for
various reasons. It continued to rely on LIC and MUCB for information pertaining
to the implementation of its own scheme.
Weak Internal Controls
• A separate Monitoring cell should have been established in the Department
for overall monitoring of the implementation of the scheme and periodic
evaluation of the scheme considering the financial stakes of Government
and the outreach of the Scheme. There was total absence of internal
control mechanism as can be seen from the facts that registers were not
maintained by the department for implementation of the scheme, due to
which information was not readily available on issues such as details of
sanctions and cases sent to LIC and MUCB for disbursement of pension;
details of applications pending sanction; details of deletions of
beneficiaries due to various reasons.
• Consequently the Department was solely relying on LIC and MUCB for
getting the above details.
• Records of sanctioned applications and Accounts records were not
maintained;
• There was no system to ensure proper scrutiny of pension claims, due to
which applications of ineligible persons were also recommended for
sanction.
• The Department solely relied on an affidavit sworn by the applicant and
countersigned by an MLA without any cross check of income of the
applicant from the revenue/local authorities.
• The Department did not issue any authenticated document for
identification of beneficiary by the disbursing bank.
_______________________________________________________________
41Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
• There were no controls such as requirement of life certificate, exclusive
pension account, etc., to ensure that the pension payment discontinued
after the death of a beneficiary.
3.1.19 Conclusion
The State Government did not critically examine the terms and conditions of its
MOU with the LIC for implementation of the DSSS, resulting in additional
financial burden on the exchequer on account of purchase price as well as interest
liability. There was no apparent advantage for implementing the DSSS through
LIC considering the large amount of money deposited with them. The State
Government did not continue the second phase with the LIC as they hiked the
purchase price by more than 30 per cent to gain even more profits from the
scheme. The State Government did not ensure implementation of the MOU with
LIC regarding the clause of payment of pension to the eligible surviving members
of the beneficiaries family. It also did not safeguard its financial interests by
taking timely action for cancellation of non genuine cases and duplicate sanctions
to same beneficiaries.
Besides, the scheme implementation suffered due to lack of adequate scrutiny
before sanction of financial assistance, non-maintenance of database, records and
accounts within the Social Welfare Department for effective monitoring of the
scheme. Though it is a pension scheme it lacked all internal controls of pension
schemes aimed at foolproof identification of beneficiary and periodic checking of
survival of the beneficiary.
3.1.20 Recommendations
• Government should take immediate action to maintain proper accounts of
the scheme within the Department and a separate monitoring cell should
be established for overall monitoring and periodic evaluation of the
scheme implementation including the cost of delivery of benefits.
• Social Welfare Department should ensure internal controls normally
prevalent in a pension payment viz. provision for a yearly life certificate,
separate pension bank account in place of any bank account permitted at
present and provision of documentary evidence in the nature of an identity
card to the beneficiaries.
• Government may consider merger of other similar old age pension
schemes with DSSS to avoid overlapping of schemes and benefits.
• All pension cases where cheques have not been encashed by beneficiaries
should be immediately cancelled by the Social Welfare Department.
• Government should take immediate action on the findings of survey report
to recover the financial assistance given to non-genuine beneficiaries by
involving the local Panchayat bodies/revenue authorities.
_______________________________________________________________
42Chapter III Performance Reviews
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
3.2 AUDIT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Highlights
The Public Health Department provides health services through a
network of hospitals, community and primary health centres, sub-centres,
rural medical dispensaries, homeopathic and ayurveda clinics. The
Secretary (Health), the Director and five Deputy Directors of Health
Services, a Joint Director of Accounts, Director of Administration and a
Vigilance Officer are the officials responsible for implementation of
various programmes including Family Welfare and Reproductive and
Child Health Care. A review of the functioning of the Health Department
revealed that though the Department had achieved the targets under the
family welfare and various disease control programmes it was slow in
upgrading its infrastructure and facilities despite availability of funds. Its
efficiency was adversely affected due to severe manpower shortage.
Monitoring of the key areas of the Department such as upgradation of
facilities and utilisation of Central funds was also poor.
¾ In the absence of approvals for various works/purchase of
machinery and delay in execution of works by the Public Works
Department, the Department could not utilise budget provisions
for capital expenditure to the extent of Rs.1.68 crore (88 per cent)
in 2001-02 and Rs 4.05 crore (91 per cent) in 2003-04.
(Paragraph 3.2.6)
¾ Due to administrative delay in setting up of Regional Diagnostic
Centre at Hospicio Hospital, Margao, the State Government did
not receive grant amounting to Rs. 2.70 crore recommended by the
Eleventh Finance Commission.
(Paragraph 3.2.7)
¾ Though Rs.1.42 crore were received in August 2002 from the
Government of India for setting up a trauma and accident unit at
Hospicio Hospital, Margao, the unit was not set up for want of a
decision regarding the site and patients continued to be referred to
the Goa Medical College.
(Paragraph 3.2.7)
¾ South Goa patients were deprived of intended benefits of the
Mental Health programme which was not implemented effectively
due to inadequate medical and support staff, lack of hospitalisation
facilities and unspent funds of Rs 19.40 lakhs.
(Paragraph 3.2.8)
¾ There was underutilisation of infrastructure and facilities created
by the Department as one hospital and several operation theatres
in PHCs/CHCs were lying idle for upto 20 years. The
infrastructure and other properties of the Leprosy Hospital,
_______________________________________________________________
43Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
Macazana was underutilised for the last five years due to new
trend of medical treatment.
(Paragraph 3.2.11)
¾ Despite formation of the Drug Purchase Committee, purchases of
medicines were not finalised by the Committee based on public
tenders and annual rate contracts.
(Paragraph 3.2.12)
¾ The Health Department functioned with significant man power
shortages as posts of medical practitioners/technical and support
staff remained vacant in hospitals and health centres resulting in
underutilisation of infrastructure/facilities created and also quality
of services rendered.
(Paragraph 3.2.13)
3.2.1 Introduction
The Directorate of Health Services (DHS), Panaji provides primary health care
and family welfare services through various central and state health
programmes. It has a network of five general and specialised hospitals, five
Community Health Centres (CHCs), 19 Primary Health Centres (PHCs),
172 Sub-Centres, 29 Rural Medical Dispensaries, four Urban Health Centres
(UHCs), 18 dental and two homeopathic clinics and one ayurveda clinic.
There are also special clinics for implementation of various centrally
sponsored programmes such as Family Welfare, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, STD,
Malaria, other vector borne diseases, control of blindness, surveillance etc.
The State also has an Institute of Nursing Education. Primary health care is
administered through the primary and community health centers and sub-
centres whereas the secondary level of health care is administered by the DHS
through district hospitals and the tertiary level by the Goa Medical College.
3.2.2 Programme objectives
The objectives of the health care system in the state are:
• strengthening the infrastructure facilities at the CHCs, District
Hospitals and tertiary care centres.
• providing quality health care services.
• Hundred per cent coverage of primary health service facilities.
• strengthening of referral services rendered by Goa Medical College
and the district hospitals.
• Eradication, control and prevention of communicable diseases.
3.2.3 Organisational set-up
The Secretary (Health), Government of Goa is the overall in charge of the
Health Department. The Director of Health Services implements the
_______________________________________________________________
44Chapter III Performance Reviews
programmes with the assistance of two Deputy Directors cum Medical
Superintendents of District Hospitals, three Deputy Directors (Public Health,
Medical, Dental), the Joint Director of Accounts, the Director of
Administration and a Vigilance officer. The Family Welfare programme
including Reproductive and Child Health care is implemented by the Deputy
Director (Public Health).
3.2.4 Audit objectives
Audit was conducted to assess:
• the extent of achievement of the objectives in implementation of the
various health programmes including the quality of services rendered,
• the adequacy of the available infrastructure and facilities,
• the effectiveness of human resource management and
• efficiency of the system of financial management.
3.2.5 Audit coverage
Audit examination covered the District Mental Health Programme, Mediclaim,
Family Welfare programme and other health schemes. The review was
conducted during the period April to July 2004 by test checking the records of
the Health Department, the Directorate of Health Services, the Central
*
Medical Stores, five General and Specialised hospitals ,
20 CHCs/PHCs/UHCs and their sub-centres and the Institute of Nursing
Education at Panaji for the period 1999-04.
3.2.6 Financial management
The details of the budget provision and expenditure of the Department for the
last five years are given below:
(Rupees in lakhs)
Year
Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure
Budget Expenditure Savings % of Budget Expenditure Savings % of
provision savings provision savings
1999-00 3699.71 3598.17 101.54 3 50.00 48.37 1.63 3
2000-01 4335.15 4055.25 279.90 6 50.69 33.36 17.33 34
2001-02 4491.74 4052.81 438.93 10 189.75 22.09 167.66 88
2002-03 5050.22 4535.77 514.45 10 189.75 134.12 55.63 29
2003-04 5425.61 4744.48 681.13 13 444.07 39.28 404.79 91
TOTAL 23002.43 20986.48 2015.95 924.26 277.22 647.04
(Note: The above figures are from the Appropriation Accounts of the Health Department
under Major Head 2210, 2211 and 4210 under Demand No. 48)
The percentage of savings under revenue heads during the period 1999-2004
was between three and 13 per cent. As stated by the Department, this was due
to non filling of vacant posts, less number of incumbents opting for Voluntary
Retirement Scheme than expected and savings in travel and medical
*
Hospicio Hospital at Margao, Asilo Hospital at Mapusa, Cottage Hospital at
Chicalim, Leprosy Hospital at Macazana and TB Hospital at Margao. A review of the
effectiveness of the internal control mechanism at GMCH was carried out and the
findings are reported in Chapter V of this report.
_______________________________________________________________
45Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
reimbursement expenditure. Though supplementary grant of Rs.3.46 crore was
obtained during 2001-02, the final savings were Rs.4.39 crore defeating the
very purpose of obtaining supplementary grant. The huge savings in capital
expenditure which were as high as 88 and 91 per cent in 2001-02 and 2003-04
respectively were attributed by the Department to delay in approval of
expenditure proposals by the Government and delay by the State PWD in
completing the works. The total expenditure incurred on important schemes
implemented by Director of Health Services during the period 1999-2000 to
2003-04 in the State is given below.
(Rs in lakhs)
Sr.No. Centrally Sponsored schemes Total
expenditure
1. Family Welfare Bureau 937.
2. Malaria Eradication Programme 1183.4
3. Leprosy Control 247.0
4. Eye Clinic-Trachoma and Blindness 159.0
5. National T B Control Programme 125.9
6. National Mental Health Programme 36.3
7. National Programme for communicable diseases 28.9
Major DHS Schemes
8 Hospital and dispensaries 7437.6
9 Primary Health Centres 5595.8
10 Mediclaim 2450.0
11 Director of Health Services 532.6
12 Dental Care 314.6
13 School Health Programme 248.6
14 Assistance to Voluntary organisations 202.0
15 Community Health Centres 199.3
16 Sexually transmitted diseases 160.9
17 Medical Stores Depot 88.4
18 Homeopathy 38.0
19 Opening of Indian system of medicines 16.9
20 Smallpox Eradication Programme 11.2
21 Training 5.2
TOTAL 20019.6
3.2.7 Programme implementation
During audit of PHC/ CHC’s, low occupancy of beds was generally observed.
There was delay in setting up of diagnostic services and trauma and accident
unit at the Hospicio Hospital at Margao and consequent non-utilisation of
funds. Training grants and financial assistance under the Family Welfare
Programme were not utilised and there was delay in setting up of the
nephrology unit at GMC. The Mental Health Programme did not achieve its
objectives. Several instances of non utilisation and underutilisation of
infrastructure were also noticed during the review.
Low bed occupancy at health centres
As per national norms for plain areas one sub-centre for a population of 5000
had been prescribed and for tribal areas a sub-centre for a population of 3000.
Similarly one primary health center had been prescribed for a population of
30000 for plain areas and 20000 for tribal areas and community health center
for population of 1.2 lakh in plain areas and 80000 in tribal areas. The
population of the State as per 2001 census is 13.48 lakh. As against
_______________________________________________________________
46Chapter III Performance Reviews
Government of India’s norms, there is a shortfall of four PHCs/ one CHC, but
an excess of 37 sub-centres.
Bed occupancy of the CHCs/PHCs ranged between three and 46 per cent
during the period 1999-2000 to 2003-04 in respect of eight* PHCs/CHCs as
test checked in July 2004. The Department replied that the low occupancy was
mostly on account of non-availability of doctors thus defeating the objectives
of facilities created for treatment of inpatients at these centres.
Delay in setting up the Regional Diagnostic Centre at Hospicio Hospital,
Margao-South Goa resulting in non receipt of Finance Commission grant of
Rs. 2.70 crore
The Eleventh Finance Commission (EFC) (2000-2005) sanctioned grants-in-
aid (GIA) of Rs.3 crore in September 2000 for setting up a Regional
Diagnostic Centre at Hospicio Hospital, Margao, South Goa. As per the
Central assistance guidelines on utilisation of EFC grants, once a project has been sanctioned by
for setting up
the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC), a time schedule for various
Regional
Diagnostic Centre stages of the programme and for requirement of funds was to be submitted to
and Trauma and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The guidelines stipulated that
accident Unit not 50 per cent of the provision for the year 2000-01 would be released "on
utilised. account" during the year on receipt of detailed plans of action approved by
SLEC and that the subsequent release of grants would be made in quarterly
instalments depending on the utilisation of grants already released and
submission of progress report to the MF/GOI.
It was seen that a budget provision of Rs.1.10 crore was decided by SLEC in
December 2000 for 2001-02. In March 2001, the Ministry of Finance released
Rs.30.16 lakh for the Diagnostic Centre, “on account” for the year 2000-01.
This amount was not utilised and utilisation report was also not furnished by
the Department. As of July 2004, tenders had not been invited for supply of
certain machinery for nine departments (Department of Surgery, Clinical
Pathological Laboratory, Anaesthesia etc). Thus due to delay in purchase and
tendering procedures, except for the CT scan services, the patients of South
Goa continued to be referred to Goa Medical College, Bambolim at North Goa
for other specialised tests. The State Government had not furnished utilisation
certificate to the Finance Commission till March 2004 and hence they had not
received (July 2004) further grant of Rs. 2.70 crore from the Government of
India.
There was no evidence of SLEC monitoring the utilisation of the EFC grant.
Delay in setting up of trauma and accident unit at Hospicio Hospital,
Margao and non utilisation of Central funds of Rs. 1.30 crore
Government of India sanctioned (August 2002) Rs.1.42 crore as financial
assistance to the State Government for upgradation and strengthening of the
trauma and accident unit at Hospicio Hospital, Margao under the pilot project
*
Madkai, Valpoi, Bicholim, Betki, Candolim, Cansaulim,
Cansarvarnem and Pernem
_______________________________________________________________
47Audit Report (Civil) for the year ended 31 March 2004
for upgradation and strengthening of emergency facilities of State hospitals
located on National Highways.
The details of the grants sanctioned are given below.
(Rupees in lakh)
Sr.No. Purpose Amount
1. Ambulance (2 nos) with equipment 12.00
2. Communication system 1.00
3. Civil works 60.00
4. Maintenance 3.00
5. Equipment and furniture 60.00
6. Maintenance 6.00
TOTAL 142.00
The entire amount of Rs.1.42 crore was received in August 2002 and as per
the guidelines of the project for upgradation and strengthening of the
emergency facilities, the expenditure was to be incurred during the financial
year 2002-03. The department spent (March 2004) only Rs.12.21 lakh on
purchase of ambulances. Estimates for civil works for Rs. 59.93 lakh, though
drawn up (January 2001) by the State Public Works Department, were lying
with the DHS as the Government was yet to decide the site for the setting up
of the trauma and accident unit i.e., whether at Hospicio Hospital or at the T B
Hospital at Monte Hill. The Government replied (December 2004) that the
civil works were not taken up since a new district hospital was being set up for
which land was being acquired and the trauma and accident unit would be set
up as a part of the new hospital. Thus the delay of four years in taking decision
resulted in non-utilisation of central assistance of Rs. 1.30 crore and depriving
South Goa accident patients of emergency services. The patients continued to
be referred to Goa Medical College, Bambolim at North Goa.
3.2.8 District Mental Health Programme
The District Mental Health Programme, under the National Mental Health
Programme, launched in India in 1996-97, was to be implemented in the State
Mental Health
Programme
in two phases, Phase I in 1999-2000 and Phase II from 2000-2004. The
suffered due to objective of the scheme was to provide sustainable basic mental health
insufficient training services to the community and to integrate these services with other health
of medical staff and services besides early detection and treatment of the patients within the
non provision of “in community, thereby taking pressure off the Mental Hospitals. Accordingly
service” facilities to
Hospicio Hospital was identified (February 1999) for implementation of the
patients.
programme.
_______________________________________________________________
48Chapter III Performance Reviews
The following is the component wise break-up of funds allocated, received
and spent.
(Rupees in lakh)
1999-2004 Staff Medicines/ Equipment/ Training Information Total
Stationery vehicles Education
/contingencies Communication
etc
Budget 46 38.00 9.00 12.00 10.00 115.70
allocation
Amount 17 12.00 9.00 10.00 4.00 52.28
received
Expenditure 10 17.99 4.00 Nil Nil 32.88
incurred
Unspent 6 (-) 5.99 5.00 10.00 4.00 19.40
balance
Central assistance The above table shows that out of Rs.52.28 lakh released during the period
of Rs. 19.40 lakh 1999-2001, Rs.19.40 lakh remained unutilised (March 2004). It was also seen
was not utilised and that the State Government did not receive the balance of the allocated grants
State did not receive amounting to Rs.63.42 lakh (December 2004) for mental health since the
allocated grants
amounting to Department had not furnished utilisation certificates and audited statements of
Rs. 63.42 lakh due accounts to the Ministry of Health, Government of India. Scrutiny of the
to non utilisation of records revealed that:
earlier grants
received. • Out of eight training programmes per year required to be conducted for
the first three years for medical and non medical workers for creation
of qualified mental health team to work at grass root level within the
community, only two training programmes as against 24, were
conducted in February-March 2002. The Government replied
(December 2004) that the process of appointment of a psychiatrist was
in process and thereafter the training programmes would be conducted.
• The scheme also envisaged setting up of a 10 bedded in patient facility,
but despite supply of 10 beds by DHS (February 2000), the same
could not be put to use as personnel, diet and other facilities were not
provided (July 2004)
3.2.9 Family Welfare Programme
Financial assistance from GOI for upgradation of District Hospitals/Health
Centres not availed.
Under the Reproductive and Child Health Programme, the Department of
Family Welfare, Government of India launched a scheme in 1997-98 for
strengthening of Primary Health institutions i.e. the sub-centres, PHCs and
CHCs. Financial assistance of Rs.10 lakh per CHC and District Hospital was
available for major civil works, based on a certificate by the State Government
that the estimate was prepared by an authorized agency. As the State had two
district hospitals and five CHCs, the total grants that could have been availed
of under the scheme as on March 2004 was Rs. 70 lakh. The Ministry (Family
Welfare) reminded (November 2003) that the Scheme was extended upto
2003-04 and requested Secretary (Health), Government of Goa for proposals.
_______________________________________________________________
49You can also read
